KJV Only?

[Jack Koons]

Tall,

After making the previous posts, I realized that I may need to clarify a particular point. That point being:

Yet the majority of these disagree with the underlying text for the KJV, and the English translation of the KJV, in that they do not have the comma.
So again the question, how can both be God's word? Or do you assert that the KJV is God's word, but that the majority of the Majority text are not? If so, then preservation seems quite different than what we might think.

The majority of those text agree in nearly all of the text. Yes, is it evident that the majority of those MSS that contain 1 John 5 do not have the Comma. This does not disqualify the Comma. But to answer your question directly, it is clear that not every copy of 1 John 5 has the Comma, and that does mean that that particular portion of text is in error. That does not disqualify the rest of the text from being authentic, when it agrees with the witness of the Byzantine type texts, and just as importantly meets the principles previously stated. Always remember, God is not obligated to preserve His words in the way, or a way, that WE dictate. It is He that is God, and it is He that makes the rules. I am not putting God in a box saying that He must preserve His words in the King James Bible for English speaking people. However, If God chooses to preserve His words in the King James Bible for English speaking people, and I believe He did; it is not I that said He had to do it, it is He that chose to do it in that manner.

To address another point quickly. Moses and Paul did not use the King James Bible. If my understanding is correct, they both lived and died prior to the publication of the King James Bible. What I do believe to be true however, is that the King James Bible IS a proper and true representation of both the Hebrew and the Greek texts. I further understand that when speaking of normal literature, written by men, one cannot ‘normally translate from the source language to the target language with a pure rendering. We are however, NOT discussing literature of human origin; we are discussing the Divine Scriptures. The same Holy Spirit who gave the words to man, is the same Holy Spirit who led men to the correct and pure copies of the original languages, is the same Holy Spirit who guided men through the translation process, and finally, is the same Holy Spirit who gives illumination to the reader of the same Scriptures that we many have understanding of the same. It matters not if we read them in the original languages, or in a translated language, the Holy Spirit is needed, just the same.

Jack

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy, you're not "spaming" are you?

Just asking? By the way, It should be apparent to you, that that your point has not been "incontrovertibly proven in this tread"; if this were the case, there would be no more debate ... would there?

Jack

“God promised to preserve His word.”

“God promised to preserve His word.”

“God promised to preserve His word.”

“God promised to preserve His word.”

“God promised to preserve His word.”

If making the same fictitious statement over and over again is not spamming, neither is posting the truth over and over again when it needs to be posted. The doctrine of KJOism is built upon a lie, and attempting to prove it by castigating other translations of the Bible is nothing but a dishonest tactic. Nonetheless, I do apologize to you, Jack Koons, if my posts offended you.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the earth is spherical rather than flat, but the Bible teaches that it is flat, and some people today believe that the earth is flat.

 

[tall73]

Tall, I appreciate you taking the time to read all the material that you have. I believe however, that your understanding of the “Families” of “textual types” is wanting (at least to a certain point), which causes this question.

You indicate that my understanding of the families of textual types is wanting. However, you go on to talk about something else, which is the method used to pick which variant is correct.

I think I have a handle on what is a majority text classification and Alexandrian etc. So if you are going to say I do not then you need to point out why.

Kurt and Barbara Aland entered this arena with the presupposition that God had not preserved His words, irregardless of the fact that God states plainly throughout the scriptures the fact that His words would endure forever. Hence, while God chose NOT to preserve His words in a monolithic text, He did still preserve His words. I believe (as do others of my like precious faith) God used people who treasured His words as the greatest treasure left on Earth by God, to be the ones who would through His provision, keep His words pure. With that being said, understand that this is not a situation where the greatest witness of authenticity is NOT the number of witnesses, nor the antiquity of the said MSS. The greatest witness is the text that fulfills three key principles.

Alright, now you are going to spell out your criteria, over and against the methods they used of looking at external textual information, and internal, number of manuscripts, habits of scribes etc.

I get that you want to establish something less secular for determining classification. I am uncomfortable trying to rule out or rule in texts based on what we perceive to be general scribal habits as well. And certain I believe that the Spirit can be a part of the process. Yet, this again is not a flaw in my understanding of the textual families. It is just your disagreement with the method of those who apply principles of secular textual criticism to a sacred text. I can see where you are coming from, but it is not my deficiency you are describing.

 

[tall73]

1) The soundness of pure doctrine: God never contradicts Himself, therefore, any text (while still maintaining the context of scripture), that causes a contradiction in the scripture, is obviously not the original reading of that text.

This would often be opposed to the rule that the textual critics use that the more difficult reading is usually the best.

Their reasoning is that people are more likely to smooth out theological issues by changing the text later. Your reasoning is that God wouldn't contradict what He said in the first place.

Just be careful with that criteria because some people see contradictions that future study resolve without removing a text.

2) The antiquity of the text: is there a reasonable witness of the disputed text given A) by other copies of MSS of at least near antiquity of other disputed texts? B) by the writings of church fathers where a) the actual text is quoted; or b) the text is so nearly quoted that it is reasonable to consider this ‘quote’ as a reference to the text in question?

Here we do run into a bit of a problem though. Even if a reading is fairly early if it is not found in many of the manuscripts it raises the question of why.

3) Is this a text that has been accepted throughout the years by those who have held to sound biblical doctrine and exegesis?

Spell this out more, please. Which years? Since the beginning of the Christian era? Are you speaking about what has traditionally been held as orthodoxy? Do you look more at the protestant era?

To a degree though this is finding the text you want, more than just what God said. Since your current view of orthodoxy then determines which people held to that view. So it would be difficult to apply.

4) Can we reasonably accept the idea that those saints whom God both chose and used in times past to providentially preserve His words did so with that wisdom which cometh from above, for the sole purpose of delivering to His saints His perfect words?
The above principles remove the scientific critical ideology and philosophy from the process of preservation of the sacred text, and lay that responsibility squarely in the hands of God where it belongs.

All of the variants were preserved or we would not have them. The question I have not been able to clarify with those who hold the KJV only view is what is meant by preserved?

Does this mean they simply existed somewhere at all times? Does this mean that God's church at all times was actively using them? Is the focus of this preservation leading up to the culmination in the English language in the 1600's?

To me God's word was to be held on to by the church for their use throughout the centuries from the start of the Christian faith.

 

[tall73]

When we understand the text of a given MSS is of the Byzantine type text, we then understand that that text is of the MT, while it may have a particular variant (such as the Comma) which may be considered a minority reading, if basing that ‘title’ strictly on a ‘numerical’ count of MSS. Also keep in mind that it was these variants that the Aland’s deemed “errors”. But did this supposed “error”, violate ANY of the above principles?

Please note, I am not Aland. I never called these errors. I specifically mentioned I am not at this time even debating the merits of a particular reading. I think there are arguments to be made on each side of most variants.

Now your standards seem to be missing something important. We want to guard against any change to God's word. This includes subtraction, OR addition. We want everything God did say, and nothing He did not.

While your principle 1 rules out things that do not conform with sound doctrine, therefore recognizing some additions, it does not give you a way to deal with all possible additions.

If a reading is a minority reading that is doctrinally sound, there is still the question of whether this is an addition later by men, or what was originally there.

Now the antiquity portion does try to weed out a bit more. However, that is where we run into questions about readings that are in the minority. Why are they in the minority if they are original?


Now apart from all that, my question was aimed a different direction. I was not wanting to determine the validity of each variant at this point. I was noting that if a variant is in the minority then in many cases the church throughout the years would not have ready access to it. So there is a question, is that still preserved? In other words, I am trying to clarify what you think preserved means.

Does it mean that it is just somewhere? Again, then all the variants would be preserved. Does it mean the church is actively using it through the centuries? That is a different bar.

 

[tall73]

Tall there is a difference between having a portion of the complete text, and knowing you may not have the complete text, and having a portion of the complete text, while identifying it AS the complete text. As an example; before giving a testimony in a court room, one is “sworn in”. That oath is often, “Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; so help you God”? Why do they go through all that descriptive wording? Because the issue in the court of law is the “truth”.
The truth here in this arena is simply this; what saith God?
We want to know, what did God say, what is all that God said, and we want nothing that He did not say.

We agree with the goal.

But to do so using so-called scientific methodology which was developed by men who denied the Divine authorship of the scripture, and who believed that because the Christian scriptures came via men, and NOT God, gives scholars the right to critique them as the works of men, (like all other works of men), is completely outside the scope of Biblical teaching.

I can agree to a point. However, I am not sure the principles you outlined are sufficient to rule in or out specific variants. And they are subjective as they are based on a particular groups view of orthodoxy.

One of the perceived advantages of lower textual criticism is it does not get into theology, which could be viewed differently by different groups.

However, I agree that simply using secular means to look at a spiritual question is insufficient.

Now part of the reason the numbers AND USE of the text does matter to me is that if we are going to talk about preservation of God's word it should be for use BY THE CHURCH that God founded. If a text is used through the centuries in lectionaries, etc. it shows that the church believed this was what God wanted them to have. The handing down of the faith is a spiritual criteria, not just a secular textual criticism criteria.

A preservation of a particular text in the theoretical sense, that it was not used by the church, but was still around, is not much good to the church. Did God want the church to have what He said, to live the faith He began at the cost of His Son? Then preservation would be for use of the church, not just for a theoretical pure English translation 1600 years later.

 

[tall73]

You see Tall, this isn’t about numbers of MSS, nearly as much as it is about proper theology, which leads to proper biblical philosophy, which places our dependency upon the finished work of God, not scholars. That is why I believe in the same ‘providential preservation’ as did the men that wrote:

Did God's church begin only with the protestant reformation? I cannot accept that. For all the problems God's church had, there was still a church all the way through. So the text that church used all the way through must be a consideration, not just what you consider to be proper doctrine now.

Do you believe God preserved His word for use by the church through the centuries, or only for a pivotal point starting in 1600?

I am not presuming one way or the other, I just haven't been able to get a satisfactory answer from those who hold to the KJV only position.

 

[tall73]

[Jack Koons]

The majority of those text agree in nearly all of the text. Yes, is it evident that the majority of those MSS that contain 1 John 5 do not have the Comma. This does not disqualify the Comma.
[/quote]

Note, I did not say it did disqualify the Comma. I said the merits could be debated, but it is unquestionably a minority reading.

But to answer your question directly, it is clear that not every copy of 1 John 5 has the Comma, and that does mean that that particular portion of text is in error. That does not disqualify the rest of the text from being authentic, when it agrees with the witness of the Byzantine type texts, and just as importantly meets the principles previously stated.

I did not say that the absence of OR presence of the Comma disqualified the rest of the text.

Always remember, God is not obligated to preserve His words in the way, or a way, that WE dictate. It is He that is God, and it is He that makes the rules. I am not putting God in a box saying that He must preserve His words in the King James Bible for English speaking people. However, If God chooses to preserve His words in the King James Bible for English speaking people, and I believe He did; it is not I that said He had to do it, it is He that chose to do it in that manner.

We certainly agree that God can do so in any manner He wishes. I am not yet to the translation part however. I am still trying to understand your view of the underlying text.

To address another point quickly. Moses and Paul did not use the King James Bible. If my understanding is correct, they both lived and died prior to the publication of the King James Bible.
What I do believe to be true however, is that the King James Bible IS a proper and true representation of both the Hebrew and the Greek texts. I further understand that when speaking of normal literature, written by men, one cannot ‘normally translate from the source language to the target language with a pure rendering. We are however, NOT discussing literature of human origin; we are discussing the Divine Scriptures. The same Holy Spirit who gave the words to man, is the same Holy Spirit who led men to the correct and pure copies of the original languages, is the same Holy Spirit who guided men through the translation process, and finally, is the same Holy Spirit who gives illumination to the reader of the same Scriptures that we many have understanding of the same. It matters not if we read them in the original languages, or in a translated language, the Holy Spirit is needed, just the same.

Jack

Again, I am not even looking at the translation portion of the question. I acknowledge God could lead in translation. Whether He did will be something we can review later.

I also agree completely that comprehension is dependent on the Holy Spirit either way, as is outlined in the Scriptures.

I have mentioned it several times now in the various responses, so likely you have an idea now what I was driving at. The real question I am trying to have you address is what constitutes preservation?

Was this preservation an ongoing thing from the beginning of the church for use by the church? Or was it a situation where the correct readings were virtually lost for a time to be discovered later, and included in the KJV?

To me, for God to really preserve His word for His church it would have to be available to that church all along.

That is why many look at preservation in a more loose sense than what you are presenting. 98 percent or more of the text is in agreement no matter which variants you look at. Some more of those are not significant to translation.

So God's word has been preserved for His church in that the vast majority of what He said to the church is in possession of the church, and has been from the beginning. It is sufficient to understand His will, His truth, and to lead to salvation and true worship.

In this sense I know God has preserved His word, and it has not returned to Him void. We are all living proof.

Now that does not mean for a moment that we should not try to resolve the last two percent. As we both agree we want everything God said in the Scriptures, and nothing He did not say.

However, we also agree that it is not a monolithic text. Certainly God's words are preserved in the sense that we have all the variants, and the correct ones are in there. The problem is a criteria that gets to that. I agree it should not simply be secular. I am just not sure we have a means to say for certain at this point. I still am glad God preserved 98 percent, plus that we can use in the meantime. It is not simply an academic question. The church can't wait for all the issues to be worked out to do their work, and throughout history, they have not waited.

And that is why I am concerned that preservation mean by use by the church.

Is the underlying Greek text of the KJV a text that was ever used by the church throughout time?

The significance of minority readings such as I John 5:7 is that even if you think they are accurate, they have not in fact been used by all the church, because they just did not appear in many of the manuscripts in use by the church.

So did those churches not have the word of God during that time? I still think they did.

 

[tall73]

Here is my bottom line for now, then I will let you clarify. If someone says that the Greek text underlying the KJV is 100 percent pure and perfect, do we see that text being used throughout the centuries by the church, word for word?

I don't think we do. So either preservation means something other than what I would think, or the KJV is not actually based on a word for word 100 percent pure text, or the point is not a 100 percent word for word pure text in the first place, but having the word of God, even with some passages uncertain, that still provides what the church needs.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

To address another point quickly. Moses and Paul did not use the King James Bible. If my understanding is correct, they both lived and died prior to the publication of the King James Bible. What I do believe to be true however, is that the King James Bible IS a proper and true representation of both the Hebrew and the Greek texts. I further understand that when speaking of normal literature, written by men, one cannot ‘normally translate from the source language to the target language with a pure rendering. We are however, NOT discussing literature of human origin; we are discussing the Divine Scriptures.

Greek has only seven tenses, and only six of these seven are used in the Greek New Testament. English has thirty-two tenses, and NONE of these thirty-two tenses is precisely equivalent to any of the six Greek tenses used in the Greek New Testament. Moreover, one of the most commonly used Greek tenses is the aorist tense, and none of the thirty-two English tenses is even remotely like it. Furthermore, all of the six Greek tenses used in the Greek New Testament primarily express the aspect of the action rather that the time of the action. All of the thirty-two English tenses, however, express primarily the time of the action rather that the aspect of the action. Therefore, NONE of the thousands of verbs in the Greek New Testament can be “perfectly” translated into English. The Holy Spirit can help the translator to select the most suitable English tense, but the Holy Spirit cannot create new English tenses. Sometimes, there is no suitable English tense, and the translator therefore uses a participle or even an adjective instead of a verb.

Verbal aspect in the Greek New Testament is not taught in most seminaries which typically teach only three for four semesters of Greek, but it is taught in universities that offer three or four years of Greek. The translators of the New Testament in the KJV had very little knowledge of verbal aspect and therefore it was not considered by them when translating the Greek New Testament.

The same Holy Spirit who gave the words to man, is the same Holy Spirit who led men to the correct and pure copies of the original languages, is the same Holy Spirit who guided men through the translation process, and finally, is the same Holy Spirit who gives illumination to the reader of the same Scriptures that we many have understanding of the same. It matters not if we read them in the original languages, or in a translated language, the Holy Spirit is needed, just the same.

The ministry of the Holy Spirit is not to be ignored—nor is it to be misrepresented. The Holy Spirit cannot create new English tenses, and NONE of the thousands of verbs in the Greek New Testament can be “perfectly” translated into English. The same Holy Spirit does give illumination to the reader who is able to recognize His voice and willing to yield to His instruction, but most men are so fallible that they make mistakes.

We saw much earlier in this thread the problems that the translators of the KJV encountered in translating Matt. 4:2.

Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. KJV

Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. KJV

Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward. KJV

Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. KJV

he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

All four of these constructions are found in copies of the KJV at Matt. 4:2, depending upon the preference of the publisher. In the Greek New Testament, the aorist tense is used to express the action of the verb πεινάω, and there is in English no suitable tense to express it. Furthermore, there was no suitable verb to express the action of the Greek verb. Therefore, the translators of the KJV used the same perfect participle used in the Bishop’s Bible (and the same incorrect spelling) rather than a verb. Unfortunately for the reader (and the printers of the KJV) of the KJV, they used a construction of the perfect participle that was already archaic when they used it! The printers of the two 1611 editions of the KJV did not recognize the construction and misprinted it as did the printers of the Bishop’s Bible. Most editions of the KJV, including both the current Cambridge edition and the current Oxford edition have retained the error, but it has been corrected in some editions of the KJV. The misprint in the current Cambridge and the current Oxford editions is nothing but meaningless gibberish, but the corrected printing found in some other editions of the KJV is actually a word! However, it is such a rare and archaic word that lexicographers do not agree on the meaning of the word.

The identical Greek verb (same tense, mood, etc.) is used in a similar context three more times in the Greek New Testament, and the translators of the KJV translated it as follows:

Matthew 21:18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.

Mark 11:12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:

Luke 4:2 during forty days, being tempted of the devil. And he did eat nothing in those days: and when they were completed, he hungered.

Which one of these translations is correct? Only one of them, if any of them, can be the “pure” and “perfect” word of God. The others must be “fakes.”

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I wonder what SaintJoeNow would tell someone who cannot read the King James Bible because of cognitive decline, but does well with other versions because they are in our current vernacular?

I will take one possible answer out of the equation. Please do not say that the KJV is at a fifth grade level, so anyone educated beyond the fifth grade can read it. I'm sorry, but that is not always the case.

BTW, my favorite version is the ESV of which I now have a Lutheran Study Bible and The Apocrypha with Lutheran study notes, also ESV.

My wife, who is who I was speaking about above, her favorite version is the 1984 NIV as she has no issues reading it.

Your mindset is to automatically reject answers before they are given. My comp giving me too much troulble now to pull up the nationally recognized scientific reading level testing which scores KJV at fifth grade reading level.
Due to the necessary substantial changes to secure copyright, no version after the King James Bible does or ever will score at lower than 6th grade reading level. There are many proofs of the more difficult readings in the new versions, you can find them easily if you quit being closed minded and do a little search.

You have bought into the lie used to sell modern versions that they use currect venacular. That lie is propogated to cover up the doctrinal changes in key words and passages and the deletions of scripture. The people who compiled your pet versions which are imposters of God's Word were ungodly men who were led by the love of money and power and did not fear God. These points are easily supported with a little research, but you probably don't care because you have stated your postion of rejecting answers before they are given.

It took me maybe three days after I was saved to become fully accustumed to the "thee's and thous". I know third grade children who have no problem with the vernacular which you are saying may be too hard for adults.

If you really want to see how your pet pretend Bible called ESV cannot be the Word of God due to the large number of variations from the King James Bible required to obtain copyright by law, I suggest you check out some side by side comparison charts of the KJV with yours and your wives favorite mockery of God's Word versions. It's easy to do. If the Spirit of God is in you, when you see the twists, changes, and deletions of key doctrines of the faith, I really don't see how you can advertise and version other than the King James Bible as the Word of God. People just don't know what they are talking about when they say any English version after the King James Bible is, contains, or conveys the word of God; they just find it easier to say..."I will take one possible answer out of the equation". That's willfull ignorance and it cannot be answered. I challenge you to do a little research on your own and quit disallowing answers before you ask a question.

 

[tall73]

don't care because you have stated your postion of rejecting answers before they are given.

It took me maybe three days after I was saved to become fully accustumed to the "thee's and thous". I know third grade children who have no problem with the vernacular which you are saying may be too hard for adults.

You do understand what he was saying, correct? He can no longer read it due to cognitive decline. He was able to, now he cannot.

He just told you he is not able to read it, and can read the others. Your answer to that is that he CAN read it?

Sorry, not flying. Obviously if he could before, and can't now, something changed. You insisting he should be able to doesn't answer what he brought up.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

You are acting like everybody except for you is fallible so the King James Bible cannot be accepted as the God-given English translation.

They way you are framing your arugument is in complete rejection of God's hand in giving us His Word in English, making God omnipotent in all except for His ability to tell you exactly what He said in your native tongue. By your line of reasoning, everything referred to as scripture must be held as suspicious in origin because human fallibilty was always in play because you were not there to witness the original writings.

To place your own translation above the King James Bible is arrogance, and to uphold modern versions as the Word of God borders on blaspemy because the changes in doctrine and wordings in key passages are in effect blasphemous. Only the King James Bible upholds all sound doctrrine in all passages regarding the deity of Christ, the reality of Hell as the penalty for sin, the atoning sinless blood of Christ, the Trinity, and so forth.

All modern versions must be rejected as they lead away from truth while the Holy Spirt leads in, through, and to Truth which Jesus Himself is.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

You do understand what he was saying, correct? He can no longer read it due to cognitive decline. He was able to, now he cannot.

He just told you he is not able to read it, and can read the others. Your answer to that is that he CAN read it?

Sorry, not flying. Obviously if he could before, and can't now, something changed. You insisting he should be able to doesn't answer what he brought up.

You are ignoring the fact that the versions he is using falsify the Word of God. They are not the Word of God. Cognitive decline is a pretty complicated concept isn't it? Thy cognitive decline givest thee a poor excuse for saying thine understanding is diminished. No?

 

[SaintJoeNow]

You are acting like everybody except for you is fallible so the King James Bible cannot be accepted as the God-given English translation.

They way you are framing your arugument is in complete rejection of God's hand in giving us His Word in English, making God omnipotent in all except for His ability to tell you exactly what He said in your native tongue. By your line of reasoning, everything referred to as scripture must be held as suspicious in origin because human fallibilty was always in play because you were not there to witness the original writings.

To place your own translation above the King James Bible is arrogance, and to uphold modern versions as the Word of God borders on blaspemy because the changes in doctrine and wordings in key passages are in effect blasphemous. Only the King James Bible upholds all sound doctrrine in all passages regarding the deity of Christ, the reality of Hell as the penalty for sin, the atoning sinless blood of Christ, the Trinity, and so forth.

All modern versions must be rejected as they lead away from truth while the Holy Spirt leads in, through, and to Truth which Jesus Himself is.

 

[Jack Koons]

“God promised to preserve His word.”

“God promised to preserve His word.”

“God promised to preserve His word.”

“God promised to preserve His word.”

“God promised to preserve His word.”

If making the same fictitious statement over and over again is not spamming, neither is posting the truth over and over again when it needs to be posted. The doctrine of KJOism is built upon a lie, and attempting to prove it by castigating other translations of the Bible is nothing but a dishonest tactic. Nonetheless, I do apologize to you, Jack Koons, if my posts offended you.

It is an incontrovertible fact that the earth is spherical rather than flat, but the Bible teaches that it is flat, and some people today believe that the earth is flat.

Actually PrincetonGuy, my asking about your ‘spamming’ was a simple matter of observation, due to the fact that another poster was accused of it, when he was not in fact doing it. (My skin is thick enough not to be offended easily.)

Addressing the following:

It is an incontrovertible fact that the earth is spherical rather than flat, but the Bible teaches that it is flat, and some people today believe that the earth is flat.

The Bible does not actually teach that the earth is flat. Rather, it uses relative language. This means that God used a language to communicate to man that was “relative” to man’s perspective. That is why, even though (as you say) it is an incontrovertible fact that the earth is spherical:

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Weather people still say that the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west. (I just let you know that in case you weren’t aware.)

Jack

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Your mindset is to automatically reject answers before they are given. My comp giving me too much troulble now to pull up the nationally recognized scientific reading level testing which scores KJV at fifth grade reading level.

Curricula for use in public schools in the United States are graded using three standard tests:

Flesch Reading Ease
Fog Scale Level
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level

These tests measure three variables:

The number of words in each sentence
The number syllables in each word
The number of sentences in each paragraph or section of the text

When these tests were applied to six of the chapters in the KJV, its grade level was measured at grade level 9.52 (those six chapters are as follows: Genesis 1, Deuteronomy 1, Proverbs 1, John 1, 1 Corinthians 1, and Revelation 1).

When the vocabulary of the KJV is included in the testing, the grade level is elevated to the 14th grade level; that is, two years of college (or the equivalent) are required to understand the grammar and most (but not all) of the vocabulary.

Due to the necessary substantial changes to secure copyright, no version after the King James Bible does or ever will score at lower than 6th grade reading level. There are many proofs of the more difficult readings in the new versions, you can find them easily if you quit being closed minded and do a little search.

NONE of this is true! When these same tests were applied to the same chapters in the New International Reader's Version (NIrV), its grade level was measured at 1.94 (the end of second grade!).

When these same tests were applied to the same chapters in 20 more translations of the Bible, 13 of them scored below the KJV in ease of reading, and 5 of these scored below the 5th grade level.

You have bought into the lie used to sell modern versions that they use currect venacular. That lie is propogated to cover up the doctrinal changes in key words and passages and the deletions of scripture. The people who compiled your pet versions which are imposters of God's Word were ungodly men who were led by the love of money and power and did not fear God. These points are easily supported with a little research, but you probably don't care because you have stated your postion of rejecting answers before they are given.

Every point made in this paragraph is a malicious lie!

If you really want to see how your pet pretend Bible called ESV cannot be the Word of God due to the large number of variations from the King James Bible required to obtain copyright by law, I suggest you check out some side by side comparison charts of the KJV with yours and your wives favorite mockery of God's Word versions. It's easy to do. If the Spirit of God is in you, when you see the twists, changes, and deletions of key doctrines of the faith, I really don't see how you can advertise and version other than the King James Bible as the Word of God. People just don't know what they are talking about when they say any English version after the King James Bible is, contains, or conveys the word of God; they just find it easier to say..."I will take one possible answer out of the equation". That's willfull ignorance and it cannot be answered.

When the KJV and the ESV are fairly and carefully compared, one finds that the ESV is a far more accurate translation that is very much easier to read (the end of the 7th grade reading level).

 

[Jack Koons]

You indicate that my understanding of the families of textual types is wanting. However, you go on to talk about something else, which is the method used to pick which variant is correct.

It is my belief that when one studies “textual criticism” as taught in seminaries today, one is, at the same time, indoctrinated with the philosophy, or belief that the Aland’s held. That belief was that variants they did not ‘agree’ with, were “errors”. Hence, it is necessary to establish early why these “families” were developed, and that the Aland’s favored the Alexandrian type readings.

I think I have a handle on what is a majority text classification and Alexandrian etc. So if you are going to say I do not then you need to point out why.

I think you understand the classifications; just wanting to establish some points early, as to avoid problems relating to the issue later. I understand, you are not an “Aland”, simply pointing out their position.

Alright, now you are going to spell out your criteria, over and against the methods they used of looking at external textual information, and internal, number of manuscripts, habits of scribes etc.
I get that you want to establish something less secular for determining classification. I am uncomfortable trying to rule out or rule in texts based on what we perceive to be general scribal habits as well. And certain I believe that the Spirit can be a part of the process. Yet, this again is not a flaw in my understanding of the textual families. It is just your disagreement with the method of those who apply principles of secular textual criticism to a sacred text. I can see where you are coming from, but it is not my deficiency you are describing.

Tall,
I am in no way trying to be offensive. My desire is that you understand the basis, and motivation of “textual criticism”. The basis and motivation is found in Post #458, which in part states:

Please observe:
Johann Salomo Semler | biography - German theologian | Encyclopedia Britannica

The following excerpts were taken from the above site:

“Johann Salomo Semler, (born Dec. 18, 1725, Saalfeld, duchy of Saxe-Saalfeld [Germany]—died March 14, 1791, Halle, Brandenburg), German Lutheran theologian who was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.
Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten, whom he succeeded on his death in 1757 as head of the theological faculty. Seeking to study biblical texts scientifically, Semler evolved an undogmatic and strictly historical interpretation of Scripture that provoked strong opposition. He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the text of Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission. From this work he drew a crucial distinction between an earlier, Jewish form of Christianity and a later, broader form.”

There are three things shown here that are noteworthy: 1) Semler was professor of theology starting in 1753 (this is only one year after Johann Gottfried Eichhorn was born); showing that Semler was at least one gerneration before Eichhorn; 2) Semler was a disciple of the rationalist Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten (this gives indication that it may to well to examine of Siegmund Jakob Baumgarten as well); and 3) “He was the first to deny, and to offer substantial evidence supporting his denial, that the entirety of the Old and New Testaments was divinely inspired and fully correct. He challenged the divine authority of the biblical canon, which he reexamined in order to determine the sequence of composition of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”.

Please notice, Semler was a theologian, who denied the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures. The question of the hour at this juncture is simply this: On or by what authority does he deny “divine inspiration” and thereby challenge “divine authority of biblical books, their nature, and their manner of transmission”? Did Semler actually believe that his 'intellect' and or learning allowed him that authority? I guess he did, (along with a lot of other scholars that have followed in his footsteps).

I am aware you are NOT Semler. I would however ask you the following:

How can an individual who publicly denies the Divine Authorship and or
Authority of the Holy Scriptures, be a Professor of Theology at a University? This man “was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.”

Do you not see a problem here?

Jack

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Actually PrincetonGuy, my asking about your ‘spamming’ was a simple matter of observation, due to the fact that another poster was accused of it, when he was not in fact doing it. (My skin is thick enough not to be offended easily.)

I have noticed that you are a mature adult.

The Bible does not actually teach that the earth is flat. Rather, it uses relative language. This means that God used a language to communicate to man that was “relative” to man’s perspective. That is why, even though (as you say) it is an incontrovertible fact that the earth is spherical:

Isa 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Weather people still say that the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west. (I just let you know that in case you weren’t aware.)

Jack

Isa. 40:22. It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: (KJV)

Isa. 40:22. It is he who sits above the circle of the earth,
and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers;
who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
and spreads them like a tent to live in; (NRSV)

This verse does NOT say that the earth is a circle! It says that the LORD sits upon the circle of the earth—the dome over the flat earth that had, before the Genesis flood, separated the oceans from the mass of water above the dome:

Gen. 6:6. And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
7. So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
8. God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
9. And God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.
10. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (NRSV)

Gen. 7:11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
12. The rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. (NRSV)

Moreover, only a flat earth has four corners:

Isa. 11:12. He will raise a signal for the nations,
and will assemble the outcasts of Israel,
and gather the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth. (NRSV)

Rev.7:1. After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on earth or sea or against any tree. (NRSV)

The literal four corners of the earth in the Bible gave rise to today’s popular expression.

Furthermore, Jesus was able to see all the kingdoms of the world from “a very high mountain.” This would have been impossible on a spherical earth:

Matt. 4:8. Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor; (NRSV)


Notice also that the KJV fails to translate the poetical parts of Isaiah as poetry, but crudely translates all of it as prose!

 

[tall73]

It is my belief that when one studies “textual criticism” as taught in seminaries today, one is, at the same time, indoctrinated with the philosophy, or belief that the Aland’s held. That belief was that variants they did not ‘agree’ with, were “errors”. Hence, it is necessary to establish early why these “families” were developed, and that the Aland’s favored the Alexandrian type readings.

I think you understand the classifications; just wanting to establish some points early, as to avoid problems relating to the issue later. I understand, you are not an “Aland”, simply pointing out their position.

Tall,
I am in no way trying to be offensive. My desire is that you understand the basis, and motivation of “textual criticism”. The basis and motivation is found in Post #458, which in part states:

I am aware you are NOT Semler. I would however ask you the following:

How can an individual who publicly denies the Divine Authorship and or
Authority of the Holy Scriptures, be a Professor of Theology at a University? This man “was a major figure in the development of biblical textual criticism during his tenure (1753–91) as professor of theology at the University of Halle.”

Do you not see a problem here?

Jack

Since this doesn't deal with my positions or questions, I have no comment .